The DSM-IV and ICD10 personality questionnaire (DIP-Q): Construction and preliminary validation (original) (raw)
Related papers
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 2011
A major reconceptualization of personality psychopathology has been proposed for DSM-5 that identifies core impairments in personality functioning, pathological personality traits, and prominent pathological personality types. A comprehensive personality assessment consists of four components: levels of personality functioning, personality disorder types, pathological personality trait domains and facets, and general criteria for personality disorder. This four-part assessment focuses attention on identifying personality psychopathology with increasing degrees of specificity, based on a clinician's available time, information, and expertise. In Part I of this two-part article, we describe the components of the new model and present brief theoretical and empirical rationales for each. In Part II, we will illustrate the clinical application of the model with vignettes of patients with varying degrees of personality psychopathology, to show how assessments might be conducted and diagnoses reached.
With the publication of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), a new approach to diagnosing personality disorders was offered in Section III, entitled “Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders”. The present study offers the psychological community empirical evidence on the efficacy of the alternative DSM-5 model, by comparing and contrasting its ability to diagnose the previously defined 14 DSM (all versions) personality disorders using established personality disorder scales, specifically the Coolidge Axis II Inventory (CATI; Coolidge, 2000), and the Personality Belief Questionnaire (PBQ; Beck et al., 2001). The American Psychiatric Association has provided an assessment instrument for measuring the 25 personality facets named the “Personality Inventory for DSM-5“(PID-5)”. This instrument is published as a supplement to the DSM-5 and can be retrieved from their website: http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm/dsm5/online-assessment-measures. These two established instruments (CATI and PBQ) will be used to determine if the alternative DSM-5 dimensional model is as effective at diagnosing personality disorders, as were the previously defined 14 categorical personality disorders. Additionally, a new set of 25 personality facet scales, adapted from the Coolidge Axis II Inventory, which correspond to the 25 DSM-5 personality facets as defined in Section III, were developed to provide an independent instrument to test the effectiveness of the 25 facet dimensional model. The new scales are named the CATI-25 facet scales, and are designed as an independent alternative to the PID-5 25 facet scales. Results indicated that the 25 PID-5 facets appeared to have good-to-excellent internal reliability and strong positive correlations with all the CATI-25 facets. The PID-5 facets appeared to describe the previously defined and established 14 CATI personality disorder scales with exceptionally high R and R2adj values when tested against the CATI. Overall, the 25 PID-5 facets appeared useful in describing the six retained personality disorders in DSM-5 (Antisocial, Avoidant, Borderline, Narcissistic, Obsessive Compulsive, & Schizotypal), and the eight personality disorders which were eliminated in current or past editions (Dependent, Depressive, Histrionic, Passive-Aggressive, Paranoid, Sadistic, Schizoid, and Self-defeating). Further studies of the clinical utility of the “Alternative DSM-5 Personality Disorder Model” are warranted, especially in clinical samples. Keywords: DSM-5 Section III, Alternative DSM-5 Personality Disorder Model, Psychometric testing for DSM-5 Personality Disorders, Personality Facets, CATI, CATI25, PBQ, PID-5.
Personality and Individual Differences, 1996
This paper reports the only study today into the empirical relationship between the Big Five dimensions of personality and symptoms of personality disorders according to both ICD-IO as well as DSM-III-R in two samples of 'normal' volunteers. Correlations were computed between the scores obtained with two different Big Five questionnaires and the number of personality disorder symptoms (criteria met) as measured by a self-report questionnaire (VKP). These questionnaires are the 23BBS: the 23 bipolar Big Five and the SPFT: the Five Personality Factor Test. Furthermore, we compared the results of our studies with those of all studies we could trace in the literature (12 in all) regarding correlations between Big Five dimensions and the personality disorder symptoms, according to DSM-III-(R) only. It was concluded that: (a) our study is unique, because for the first time the relationships between ICD-10 personality disorders criteria and Big Five dimensions are investigated; (b) the differences found with regard to the ICD-IO personality disorders symptoms and the corresponding DSM-III-R personality disorder symptoms are relatively small; (c) therefore in terms of underlying personality dimensions the criteria in both systems are more or less the same.
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 2011
The four-part assessment of personality psychopathology proposed for DSM-5 focuses attention on identifying personality psychopathology with increasing degrees of specificity, based on a clinician's available time, information, and expertise. In Part I of this two-part article, we described the components of the new model and presented brief rationales for them. In Part II, we illustrate the clinical application of the model with vignettes of patients with varying degrees of personality psychopathology, selected from the DSM-IV-TR Casebook, to show how assessments might be conducted and diagnoses reached.
A Review of the Measures Designed to Assess DSM-5 Personality Disorders
Psychology, 2014
The definition, classification and assessment of personality disorders (PDs) have attracted considerable debate for nearly 50 years. This paper attempts a comprehensive review of the instruments to assess all, or specific, individual disorders as described in DSM-5, including structured interviews and inventories. The review should be helpful for clinicians, researchers and also industrial and organizational psychologists, to screen and assess the personality pathology spectrum from subclinical manifestations to full blown personality pathology. A decision tree helpful to choose among the different measures is also provided.
Validating the Alternative DSM-5 Criteria for Personality Disorders
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 2019
In 2010, the Working Group of Personality and Personality Disorders of the DSM-5 task force proposed a thorough diagnostic reformulation of the category of personality disorders. After debates and negotiations, these alternative criteria ended in Section III of the DSM-5 manual (diagnoses in need of further testing). We tested these alternative criteria in a sample of Basque-speaking patients from the Basque region of Spain who had clinical diagnoses of personality disorder, using instruments that had been developed and used as part of the DSM-5 field trials in the United States for assessing the proposed new diagnostic category. All study instruments were translated and adapted for use in the Basque language. Interviews were done twice (time 1 and time 2) and were scheduled at least 1 month apart to assess test-retest reliability. The results demonstrated that the DSM-5 alternative criteria worked well in this clinical sample, with highly satisfactory levels of reliability being attained and a good level of clinician's satisfaction related to the use of the new criteria. The alternative criteria in personality disorders seemed to work well in this European sample with unique linguistic features.